This is what happens when Randy Shaw supporters go out of their way and try and discredit this blog during election season. It just gets posted all over again, and front page, again reminding people who otherwise would never have known this. This is the “Barbra Streisand’ effect where she tried to sue people taking pictures of HER Malibu coastline and ended up telling millions more where she lived via public lawsuits

First off, the accusation, even tho this Blog is not a newspaper and I don’t even have to check facts, but I will

how ’bout you fact check first? seiu 1021 had employees on lost time collect signatures, meaning they were not under employment at that time at thc or chp, or another other union shop.
#1 factcheck on 2010-10-12 18:49 (Delete) (Reply)

My reply is just after that, but I’ll go a step further

The fact is that Bobbi Lopez told the Bay Guardian that she was with Tenderloin Housing Clinic during the time she was collecting signatures for this ballot. During this phone call/interview between Lopez and the Guardian, she could have easily said she was doing it on behalf of herself, SEIU or anybody else, but she didn’t. She specifically said “Tenderloin Housing Clinic”

The ballot measure, this November in San Francisco is proposition K or the Hotel Fairness Initiative, which, for example, is supported by the California Nurses Association . I personally don’t really care about it and I think it will have little effect either way, but that’s not the point

The point is that, it’s neither the Bay Guardians responsibility as true and accurate reporters, or this Bluoz blog to make sure that Randy Shaw and Tenderloin Housing Clinic did NOT specifically campaign for and endorse this ballot measure

Not at all. In fact, once an assumption or accusation is made that “city money is used for political activity”, it’s the contractors duty and obligation to prove it false (not the other way around). It’s in the friggin contract!..Ever read a contract before? It’s boring as hell and Randy Shaw should know, he signed this one and many others with the City and County of San Francisco. I’ll spare you the entire contract details on this post, and get right to the point

Hat’s off to anonymous/factcheck and congradumalations, you just made more people aware of this little part of the contract, on page 42. That the burdon of proof is on the contractor to prove that this didn’t happen.

this little section, is in fact, so important, you can see that this copy has been checked and initialed by yet another prominent attorney here in san francisco